Samuel Tunick Faces Federal Felony After Phone Was Wiped During Atlanta Airport Search

Samuel Tunick is facing a federal felony after data on his Google Pixel was erased while Customs and Border Protection officers were trying to search the device at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport. His attorneys are challenging the legality of the search, putting the government’s border search powers at the center of the criminal case.

The encounter occurred on January 24, 2025, after Tunick returned to the United States from the Dominican Republic and was sent to secondary inspection. Federal officers sought access to his phone, and court records state that Tunick eventually provided a passcode. When an officer entered it, the screen went blank, flashed several times and appeared to restart. Prosecutors allege the phone’s contents had been deleted.

A federal grand jury indicted Tunick in November 2025 under 18 U.S.C. § 2232(a). The law makes it a crime to knowingly destroy, damage or take other action against property for the purpose of preventing or interfering with the government’s lawful authority to take it into custody. A conviction can carry up to five years in prison.

Tunick’s phone was running GrapheneOS, a privacy-focused operating system available for Google Pixel devices. Its security features can include an option that erases stored data when a designated password is entered. Tunick has said he used the software because he wanted greater control over personal information stored on his phone. The indictment does not name GrapheneOS or describe the password as a duress code.

The federal law behind the charge does not generally make it illegal for someone to delete information from a personal device. Prosecutors must show that a person knowingly acted with the purpose of preventing or interfering with the government’s legal custody or control of property. For Tunick, that means the case involves more than whether the phone was wiped. Prosecutors must also prove the intent required by the statute.

His attorneys are contesting another part of the government’s case. They have asked the court to suppress statements and evidence from the airport encounter, arguing that officers violated Tunick’s constitutional rights during his detention and the search of his phone.

A suppression motion asks a judge to prevent prosecutors from using evidence that the defense argues was obtained unlawfully. Tunick’s lawyers also claim officers used concerns about illegal material as a pretext to investigate his connection to the movement opposing Atlanta’s public safety training center, commonly called Cop City by critics. Prosecutors maintain that the airport search was lawful.

Tunick has participated in activism against the training center, but he is not charged with a crime related to that movement. The federal felony concerns what prosecutors say happened to his phone while officers were attempting to examine and seize it.

Border searches are subject to different Fourth Amendment rules from ordinary police searches. The Constitution generally protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures, and law enforcement officers ordinarily face significant limits when trying to access the contents of a phone. At international borders and ports of entry, however, federal officers have broader authority to inspect people and property entering the country.

Tunick’s case is being prosecuted in Georgia, where Eleventh Circuit precedent gives border officials broad authority to search electronic devices. In United States v. Touset, the appeals court held that the Fourth Amendment did not require suspicion for the electronic device searches challenged in that case. The ruling followed earlier Eleventh Circuit precedent holding that border officials did not need a warrant or probable cause to conduct a forensic search of a cell phone.

Other federal courts have placed greater limits on some electronic border searches, meaning the rules are not identical across the country. Courts have continued to confront how traditional border search authority should apply to phones and computers capable of storing years of messages, photographs, location records and other personal information.

Eleventh Circuit precedent will guide the federal court as it considers Tunick’s constitutional challenge. Section 2232 also requires prosecutors to establish that officers had lawful authority over the property he is accused of interfering with. His lawyers argue the circumstances of the detention and phone search exceeded constitutional limits, while prosecutors contend the officers were acting within their border search powers.

The case remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. U.S. Magistrate Judge Christopher C. Bly held an evidentiary hearing on Tunick’s suppression motion on July 20 and left the record open for additional testimony. Tunick’s post-hearing brief is due September 18, followed by the government’s response on October 9 and a defense reply on October 23. Tunick has pleaded not guilty, and the court has not ruled on the suppression request.